Canyq

Welcome to Wikidata, Canyq!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

 Curtaintoad ^{(curtain or toad)} 05:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging

Hello Canyq,

I see you have merged several subfamilies and families.

• Item family Quiinaceae Q13635621 has been merged to subfamily Quiinoideae Q132800
• Item family Theophrastaceae Q14431954 has been merged to subfamily Theophrastoideae Q132048
• Item family Memecylaceae Q13634053 has been merged to subfamily Olisbeoideae Q134451

This is not right. A subfamily is something different from a family; each has its own properties and each deserves its own item.

On the other hand, Prunoideae and Amygadaloideae are two different names for the same thing, and they look to be right for a merge (the Spanish entry could become a redirect. - Brya (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are totally right. I'm terribly sorry for the mess I did. It's not that I don't know the difference between a family and a subfamily (or between a family and a genus) but in those three cases apparently I read too fast, or who knows. I'm glad you corrected them.

About Prunoideae and Amygdaloideae, well, it seems to be a bit more complex: there is a classical definition of Amygdaloideae (Amygdaloideae sensu stricto) and that definition is synonym of Prunoideae, but allegedly that group has been deprecated and is no longer accepted taxonomically. Currently there is an extended definition of Amygdaloideae taking it place. So we actually have two definitions of Amygdaloideae: the old one, which is synonym of Prunoideae, and the new extended one, which is accepted taxonomically. You can read about this in w:en:Rosaceae (see diagram) and in w:en:Amygdaloideae. Therefore, I extracted from the Wikidata item about the deprecated subfamily Prunoideae the interwikis and properties related to the newly built subfamily Amygdaloideae while trying to point out the difference between them through the description.

Have a nice day and, again, I'm sorry about my three mistakes. --Canyq (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, Amygdaloideae is something else entirely. You are quite right that there are several possible cicumscriptions (definitions), and theoretically each of these could have a page of its own in Wikipedia. However, this has nothing to do with its name. Under the present rules any subfamily containing Prunus (no matter its circumscription) is to be called Amygdaloideae, and not Prunoideae. If there is anything to be deprecated, it is the name Prunoideae. On that basis there is no reason to really have more than one item here (or on a Wikipedia), although it would not hurt for this item to exist here as long as there are no iw's in it (see Adansonia gibbosa, a name which is not to be used).

        As the situation is, I see no real reason for the Spanish Wikipedia to have two separate entries as the smaller page does not explain that it is about a smaller alternative circumscription, let alone who defines it this way. Such an explanation could also be included in the bigger page. So, as it now stands I see no reason not to make the smaller page into a redirect. - Brya (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem about merging w:es:Prunoideae into w:es:Amygdaloideae and then, merging Q854082 into Q15216083 is that even if we manage to build a single wikidata item, it would comprise two different definitions of Amygdaloideae (the traditional and the modern one) depending on which interwiki is considered. And what's worse, currently there are far more languages on the deprecated circumscription (Prunoidae). So, all in all, I feel rather uncomfortable with merging and instead I'd prefer to see more articles about the modern sense of Amygdaloideae being created in different languages and added to Q15216083 but well, it only my opinion: I don't know if there's an established policy to deal with these cases. --Canyq (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The important thing is to separate nomenclature and taxonomy. The present rules of nomenclature (ICNafp) prescribe that all subfamilies that contain Prunus (and not Rosa) are called Amygdaloideae (no matter what the circumscription is). So all the pages on all the Wikipedia's are eventually going to be called Amygdaloideae. If the Spanish Wikipedia wants to have two separate pages, they should be called something like Amygdaloideae s.s. and Amygdaloideae s.l..

        Reading these two Spanish pages, as they are now, there is no justification for two separate pages. Of course they could be rewritten to amend that, but I don't really see why anyone would want to do that.

        As far as I know there is no uniform established policy to deal with such cases. I once dealt with the Kingfishers, where there seems to be agreement on what groups there are (three subgroups), but not what rank they should be assigned. I spent hours matching the same groups to each other, but this was really a lot of work and the final result looked terrible. Any reader coming upon that would have to go check all the pages on all the Wikipedia's to see that it was really all right, but otherwise it will look a mess. Besides, mostly there is no clearcut agreement on what groups there are, but there are all kinds of transitional forms. Mostly we put things that have the same name in the same item (but the English Wikipedia has three pages Magnoliidae, none of which has the best-known Magnoliidae as its topic[!], and the German Wikipedia has two pages Magnoliopsida); this also makes it easy to add properties such as date and authors of the name. And mostly names that may not be used under the rules don't get an own item (but there are exceptions, and maybe there will be more of them, like in the case of Adansonia gibbosa). - Brya (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. I've merged back Q15216083 into Q854082, verify them if you want. The work that remains is merging es:Prunoidae into es:Amygdaloideae and then deleting Q15216083. I'm busy now but I've added that task to my list of things to do. --Canyq (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. - Brya (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Canyq (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)